Inclusive education is a global trend promoted by organizations like UNESCO, aiming to provide education for all, regardless of disability. The Salamanca Statement (1994) was a key milestone, yet a universally agreed-upon definition of inclusive education remains elusive. While Saudi Arabia signed the Salamanca Statement, inclusive education faces uncertainty at theoretical and practical levels. Existing practices often labeled as inclusive may not align with global philosophies. This study investigates the meaning of inclusive education among Saudi academics specializing in special education to address this gap. The lack of a clear definition contributes to varying interpretations and practices, highlighting the need for this research.

The literature reveals a lack of consensus on a single definition for inclusive education, attributed to factors such as diverse research perspectives, overlapping terminology (integration, mainstreaming, placement), and differing national educational systems. The Salamanca Statement (1994) defined inclusive education as a process of responding to diverse student needs, encompassing changes in content, curriculum, structure, and strategy. Later definitions emphasized transforming schools to support all students and removing barriers to learning. Characteristics of inclusive education include enrolling all children in nearby schools, a zero-rejection policy, heterogeneous classrooms, adaptable curricula, full participation, social support, and adequate resources and training. Despite the global movement, challenges and obstacles persist in many countries. This study uses Roger Slee's inclusive education theory as a framework to understand the perspectives of Saudi academics, considering the ambiguity and overlap with other concepts.

This study employed a qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews as the primary data collection method. A purposive sampling strategy selected 12 faculty members from seven Saudi universities specializing in special education, all holding doctorates. The interviews, conducted remotely using Google Meet, lasted 45-60 minutes and explored participants' definitions of inclusive education, examples of inclusive practices, distinctions between inclusive and special education, and the existence of inclusive practices in the Saudi context. Thematic analysis (TA) with a deductive approach was used to analyze the data, guided by Roger Slee's inclusive education theory and Loreman's definition of inclusive education. Three experiential themes – identical or close definition, ambiguity of definition, and relationship conception – emerged. The findings were validated by three academics and seven participants.

The analysis revealed a lack of complete congruence between participants' understanding of inclusive education and the adopted definition. Only two participants provided definitions close to the study's adopted definition, highlighting the absence of a unified definition in the Saudi context. Ambiguity and confusion were prevalent, with 83% (10 out of 12) of participants demonstrating unclear understanding or confusing inclusive education with integration. Confusion between inclusion, integration, mainstreaming, and placement was significant. Regarding the relationship between inclusive and special education, most participants (11 out of 12) perceived a correlation, either viewing inclusive education as part of special education or vice-versa. Only one participant identified the two as contradictory. The study highlighted the prevalence of the medical model of disability underpinning special education versus the social model of disability supporting inclusive education.

The findings underscore the lack of a shared understanding of inclusive education in the Saudi context. The confusion between inclusive education and other concepts, like integration and LRE, points to a need for greater clarity and professional development. The perceived correlation between inclusive and special education contradicts the fundamentally different philosophies and practices of each. The study's limitations include the relatively small sample size and potential bias introduced by the qualitative methodology. However, the findings provide valuable insights into the current understanding and perceptions of inclusive education among Saudi academics, highlighting the need for a unified definition and targeted educational interventions.

This study reveals significant ambiguity and confusion regarding inclusive education among Saudi academics specializing in special education. The lack of a unified definition, confusion with related concepts, and misunderstanding of the relationship with special education necessitate several recommendations: adoption of a unified definition, promoting correct concepts through professional development, supporting research to understand the reasons for the shortcomings, enacting supportive legislation, and evaluating current practices. Future research could explore teacher training practices, the impact of policy on inclusive practices, and the lived experiences of students with disabilities in the Saudi educational system.

The study's sample size was relatively small, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings. The qualitative nature of the research means the results might not be easily transferable to quantitative contexts. The reliance on self-reported data could be subject to biases, such as social desirability bias. Future studies involving larger, more diverse samples and employing mixed-methods approaches would strengthen the evidence base.